MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Mark Gerretsen

Follow by RSS

Gerretsen defends Liberal affordability measures, such as the national school food program and the groceries and essentials benefit, while justifying Canada’s inclusion of the Coast Guard in NATO defense calculations. He argues that opposition critiques are based on hidden bad faith, frequently claiming members are “playing games.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B–
73 / 100 over 44 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 65 / 100
Respect 98 / 100
Clarity 93 / 100
Loses points more than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.7.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×7.9 Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.2.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.2 Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 44 of 71 statements graded so far.

Statements 71

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“Conservatives are just attacking this member's character. She showed good character by standing up for her community. I want her to share how joining our party will help the people she represents.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the questions my Conservative colleagues are asking today are intended just to go after this member’s character. The irony is that she has shown character in her willingness to properly represent her community, to stand for her constituents and to work on behalf of her constituents to make their lives even better. I wonder if she can reflect on how she feels now that she has joined the governing caucus and how she sees that translating into a very positive message and positive outcome for her community specifically.

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

In response to a question from Ned Kuruc

“The member gave an emotional speech about this bill, but earlier tonight the Conservatives tried to end the debate early. Even 18 Conservatives, including their leader, did not bother to vote on their own motion. Why did the member vote to end the debate?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now. As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition. They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we’re going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not. It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives. Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?

Government Orders ·

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026‑27

“I want everyone to agree to use the results from the last vote for this vote, with Liberals voting yes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“Conservatives get excited when Canada gets bad economic news. Cheering for bad news will not help them win the next election.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 9 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think using the word “celebrating” would be going a little too far, but I know where the member is going with this. What I was trying to say is that what Conservatives do is get excited. I can almost guarantee members that a week ago, on May 31, when those numbers came out and Canada had a negative 0.04% growth rate, they got excited because they saw an opportunity, and this is what they have been doing. All I was trying to say when I got up in the House and gave this speech was that doing that is not going to put them in a position to form government. The sooner they learn that, the better for them, but the worse for us, I guess.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“Experts predicted worse job numbers, but Canada added many full-time jobs in May and unemployment dropped. The Conservative leader only talks about bad economic news, not the good news.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, those same organizations projected that there would not be the job numbers growth that there was in May. Those same organizations projected that unemployment would not drop as much as it did. Those same organizations projected that full-time employment would not surge the way it did. Yes, there are projections, but then there is reality. The reality is that on Friday of last week, there were incredible job numbers for our country. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to make even a drive-by comment on them. Meanwhile, a week ago, when there was a -0.04% growth rate, he ran outside, acted like the sky was falling and declared a full-scale recession. It is just theatrics to him.

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“The member who just asked me a question wants me to explain things to her voters. Yet she voted against every measure meant to help those same people.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Brandon—Souris is referring to. I am responding to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City’s question. She is in the House right now. We all know that. The point is that the member who asked me a question a moment ago, who was in the House when she did it, is now suddenly trying to ask me to explain things to her constituents, but she voted against every single measure that was brought in to help the lives of those very constituents.

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“Did the member tell her voters that she voted against all our bills to help Canadians? We cut taxes, created school food programs, dental care, and medicine coverage, but she voted against every single one.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We brought in a national school food program.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 26.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, did the member tell her constituents how she voted against every single bill we brought forward that would improve the lives of Canadians? We lowered taxes in the lowest tax bracket. We brought in a national school food program. We brought in dental care. We brought in pharmacare. We have done so many things over the years that the member has been in and out of the House to experience and to vote on, but she has voted against all of it. My only question to the member—

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“The member broke our rules by talking about who is in the gallery. Please remind her of the rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot reference anybody who was or was not in the gallery. Perhaps you would like to remind her of the rules.

“Conservatives constantly change their story and act like everything is a disaster. Canadians do not believe the games their leader plays. That is why they lost the last election and are low in the polls. They need to rethink their strategy because it is not working.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot run out there and act as though the sky is falling one day, and then a week later pretend that there is no news, because it is completely contradictory. Conservatives can heckle all they want on this. They can disagree with me. They can challenge me. They can do whatever they want. The reality of the situation is that this is the narrative that is out there. This is what the vast majority of Canadians see when they see the games the Leader of the Opposition plays. Unfortunately, it is my position that what the Conservatives are doing today is just continuing to play into that narrative of “The sky is falling”, without being genuinely reflective of what is really going on and the reality of the situation. They can hem and haw, roll their eyes and say that I have no idea what I am talking about, but I would encourage them to be a little self-reflective and to try to figure out if they can sort out why they did not win the last election and why they continue to be so low in the polls. It is because of the Leader of the Opposition and the way he continues to go on and on, the games he plays, and the things he does. Canadians are just not buying it anymore. The Conservatives do not need to like it, but that is the reality of the situation. They hopefully can take some time this summer to reflect on what their strategy should be moving forward, because as we have seen over the last number of years, the strategy they are currently using, which led to today’s opposition motion, is not a successful one. I do not think it ever will be. I hope they can learn from that and figure out that there is something they can contribute to the House and to democracy, but it is not going to be with the approach they have been taking and, in particular, the approach the Leader of the Opposition is taking.

“Conservatives are acting like they want the economy to fail for political points. The Conservative leader rushed to claim Canada was in a huge recession after one bad report. When better job numbers came out a week later, he stayed quiet.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Respect 99 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He is literally in hiding”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. At the outset, I must say that I have sat in the House for a fair bit today, listening to the debate. I cannot help but reflect on some of what I have been hearing as a result of some of the news that was received regarding the economy: a sense of almost excitement or gleefulness that comes from the Conservatives as they celebrate the opportunity to try to make a bigger issue out of news and turn this into a partisan issue rather than trying to genuinely help. I am being heckled, but I will read something from Fred DeLorey, a former Conservative campaign manager. About three or four days ago, while he was being interviewed on CBC, he said, “it’s dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling, when in a month’s time or two months’ time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn’t. It was a week later.... Job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, and other economists saying, it’s not a recession.” I am not talking about some Conservative operative from the 1980s or 1990s. I am talking about the campaign manager who led the Conservative Party of Canada’s national campaign just two elections ago, and that is what he said. He is being extremely critical of the approach that the Leader of the Opposition is taking to this issue, running out and trying to proclaim that the sky is falling. Let us look at the timeline. Mr. DeLorey is looking at the timeline too and reflecting on it in the quote I read out. The timeline is this. On Friday, May 29, the first-quarter growth numbers came out, and the growth for Canada was -.04%. It does show that it is negative growth. Two consecutive negative-growth quarters means that we are in a recession. Why are the Conservatives clapping? This is exactly what I was talking about. They jump on an opportunity. They start clapping at the idea that the economy is not doing as well as it otherwise could have been doing. This is what ended up happening. The Leader of the Opposition, on a Friday morning, ran out one of the main doors of this building, held an emergency press conference and said that there is a massive, full-scale recession and it is all the Liberal Prime Minister’s fault. He went on and on. The Leader of the Opposition attacked a reporter for asking a basic question. One of the reporters said that some economists are not saying that what he is saying is true, and the reporter asked if he was jumping the gun a bit. He attacked the reporter and asked what outlet the reporter was with. These are totally Trump-style attacks. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happened. Regardless of the Conservatives’ heckling, it happened in front of this building on a Friday morning. The Leader of the Opposition could not wait 30 minutes to digest the numbers. He had to do it immediately. Let us fast-forward to this past Friday, June 5, when we found out the job numbers in the report for May. There were almost 90,000 net new jobs in Canada, which contributed to a decrease in unemployment. Full-time employment skyrocketed. There was significant economic growth in many sectors. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he run outside and hold another press conference? No, he did not. He is literally in hiding. He disappeared. He has not said a word. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, by the way, as my colleagues across the way heckle me on this, I have not heard his speech today. When is he going to give a speech on this? He has not said a single word on this issue. He literally does not want to address this. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, should I call my own point of order on this? At some point you have to step in. The Leader of the Opposition has not said even a single word about it. It is one thing if he wants to claim one day that the sky is falling, but a week later he cannot even reflect on the fact the job numbers are better and the economy might not be in that full-scale recession he tried to paint a week earlier. My colleagues are having a hard time listening to me, so why do I not go back to Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from two elections ago. By the way, a number of Conservatives sitting in the House ran for office when he was the Conservative campaign manager. This is what he said just three or four days ago: “It’s problematic when you choose to go down that road that [the Leader of the Opposition] has chosen to go down so aggressively, almost like he’s rooting for a recession. I understand partisan politics very well. You know, I’m a tribal Conservative. I want to win the next election. Three years before an election, screaming that the sky is falling every week is not how you do it.” These are the words of a former Conservative campaign manager, who ran the 2021 election for the Conservative Party of Canada and who full-on went on CBC news and announced to the world that the Leader of the Opposition is, in his words, “rooting for a recession.” That is what we are dealing with. The Leader of the Opposition cannot think that he is ever going to be the leader of a country, when he runs out there one day and claims that the sky is falling, that everything is coming to an end and that we have the most dramatic economic downfall in Canadian history, then a week later keeps his mouth completely— An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

“The member used old unemployment numbers. A new report on Friday showed that Canada gained 90,000 jobs in May and full-time work grew. I want to know why she ignored that good news in her speech.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I know the member read her speech, but perhaps she wrote it last week because the number that she used for Canada’s unemployment in her speech does not reflect the new number that came out on Friday. She might want to update her numbers. She might also want to reflect on the fact that the report that came out last Friday showed that Canada had a net increase of 90,000 jobs in May, that full-time work surged and that sectors across the economy have grown. I am curious. Notwithstanding the fact that she may have written that speech on Wednesday of last week, why did nothing in the 10-minute speech she just provided talk about the new report that came out on Friday, which showed that there was a significant improvement in May alone?

“The member must take back her comment and apologize without making excuses. She has refused to respect your authority twice now.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.

“Our rules do not let members call someone a liar. The member for Oshawa must take back what she said and make a full apology.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard. The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“The member for Oshawa yelled, 'That is a lie.' That is against the rules. I want you to make her take it back.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am sure you heard it. In that exchange, the member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” I am sorry. The neighbouring member for York—Durham thinks that is funny. The member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” She should know that is unparliamentary. I would respectfully request that you ask her to withdraw that comment.

“A former Conservative campaign manager said the economy is not in a recession and job numbers are up. What does the member think about what his fellow Conservative said?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned Liberal pundits at the beginning of his speech. Here is something a pundit said, “it’s dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling when in a month’s time or two month’s time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn’t. It was a week later.... The job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, another economist saying it’s not a recession.” Does the House know which pundit that is? It is Fred DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign manager for Erin O’Toole, who said that on the CBC. Would the member like to comment on the comments of his Conservative friend’s punditry?

“The member accused us of picking only the facts we like, but he did the same thing. He ignored last week's report showing Canada added 90,000 jobs and unemployment dropped. I want him to explain why he left that out.”
Official Hansard

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday. I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

“The Conservatives delay every single bill. Because they block everything, the government has to force debates to end so bills can move forward.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I find it really amusing to listen to Conservatives talk about games being played in the House when they are literally the party that hid people behind the curtain during a very important vote months ago. Would the minister not agree with me that, time after time, we see the Conservatives refusing to let legislation through, so we have to eventually use a tool like this to advance it? If they were more selective and did their filibustering tactics every once in a while, it might hold a bit more credibility. The problem is that they do it at every single opportunity, so with every single bill, it seems like this is the only way to keep it advancing forward. We will get to the point where the public does not even realize what is going on anymore because the Conservatives do it every single time. Would the minister not agree that the Conservatives’ approach and strategy would probably be a bit more productive if they were a bit more selective in choosing when to use the tool of filibustering to prevent and delay legislation from moving forward?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Our government takes artificial intelligence seriously. We are the first government to have a minister in charge of it. We want to use this technology safely, protect Canadians, and get the most benefits from it, including using it to point out flaws in Conservative ideas.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this is something the government takes extremely seriously. This is the first government to have a Minister of Artificial Intelligence who is directly overseeing how we can safely implement artificial intelligence, which is inevitably going to make its way through society, and how we can safely do that in a way that protects Canadians but still sees the maximum potential that can come from this technology, including when that potential uses the opportunity to critique opposition motions from the Conservatives.

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“The world is unpredictable right now. We are working to build a stronger economy that trades with many different countries instead of relying on just one. I trust the Prime Minister to do this, and I do not think the Conservative leader can.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 16 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely correct. The reality is that we live in a world right now that we could not have predicted two years ago. We are responding to the uncertainties in that world and laying the framework and the groundwork to have a stronger economy that is not reliant on one particular trading partner but that can be diverse throughout the world. I have full confidence in the Prime Minister’s ability to do that. I think it is glaringly obvious to Canadians that the alternative in the Leader of the Opposition just does not measure up.

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“I do not read from a script when I speak here. Other members read questions that someone else wrote for them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 29 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a nice try. I am probably one of the very few members of the House who does not read from or use a script or anything when I am speaking in the House. I literally spoke to the Speaker the whole time and read four sentences from something on my phone. We are about to go into question period, and every single question we hear, including from the Bloc, at least 70% or 80% of the time, will be a written-out question. I would love to know who writes out those questions for the Bloc or for the Conservatives. As far as it goes for me, I stand here, I speak my mind, and I speak it without notes or assistance.